BA B777 Incident @ Heathrow (merged)
Evertonian
Yeah, fair enough. I just noticed it because in my Certificate IV in Accident Investigation at Broady TAFE, they told us to look for that sorta thing!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they would have had battery at minimum, so radio would still be working. I am surprised no mention has been made of any abnormal radio communications or anything at all coming from anyone in ATC.
The PPL pilot who witnessed the planes approach said it was banking heavily and not making a straight in approach. If I recall all of the approaches for these runways are typical straight line approaches from a FAF, that was definately not what he described seeing. Which says to me that there had to be some communication of some abnormality before that 400 ft high engine flameout.
One thing I have not heard any mention of is whether 27L was even an active landing runway at the time.
The PPL pilot who witnessed the planes approach said it was banking heavily and not making a straight in approach. If I recall all of the approaches for these runways are typical straight line approaches from a FAF, that was definately not what he described seeing. Which says to me that there had to be some communication of some abnormality before that 400 ft high engine flameout.
One thing I have not heard any mention of is whether 27L was even an active landing runway at the time.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Sydney
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congratulations also to London ATC. In the aftermath of the accident they remained very calm and professional when dealing with the many holding and diverting aircraft. In a very british statement reminiscent of Lawrence (Titus) Oates last words (see Scott's Antartic expedition) ATC said " we're just cleaning up a bit of debris from the runway, we're not sure how long it will be !"
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they would have had battery at minimum, so radio would still be working. I am surprised no mention has been made of any abnormal radio communications or anything at all coming from anyone in ATC.
The PPL pilot who witnessed the planes approach said it was banking heavily and not making a straight in approach. If I recall all of the approaches for these runways are typical straight line approaches from a FAF, that was definately not what he described seeing. Which says to me that there had to be some communication of some abnormality before that 400 ft high engine flameout.
One thing I have not heard any mention of is whether 27L was even an active landing runway at the time.
The PPL pilot who witnessed the planes approach said it was banking heavily and not making a straight in approach. If I recall all of the approaches for these runways are typical straight line approaches from a FAF, that was definately not what he described seeing. Which says to me that there had to be some communication of some abnormality before that 400 ft high engine flameout.
One thing I have not heard any mention of is whether 27L was even an active landing runway at the time.
27L is almost always active, it only closes at night. This was day.
They were flying and dealing with a problem. Ever heard of aviate, navigate, communicate?
What a PPL saw is about as reliable as what a journalist saw.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Great Southern Land
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too thought of water contamination but on a flight of that length, water being heavier than fuel, and fuel being picked up from the bottom of the tank, I would expect water contamination to show its ugly head a lot earlier in the flight.
Noddys car....I think water content in the fuel would have reared its head a lot earlier as it collects in the lowest point in the tank and would normally get sloshed around with the fuel by the jet pumps....Forgive the wording its been a long night but i think someone out there knows what I mean!
The Reverend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney,NSW,Australia
Posts: 2,020
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferrari,
It is powered whilst there is hydraulic pressure but will deflect in the wind when hydraulic pressure is terminated.
The rudder is not unpowered, powered by 3 Power control units, left, centre and right hydraulics and 3 actuator control electronics.
Not necessarily, they wouldn't need to add anything (above ref plus +5) if they were using autothrottle.
PJ2:
According to Boeing procedures for the 777, speed additives are only required when using manual thrust. If the autothrust is engaged, which it normally is, then the MCP command window is set to Vref+5.
From the Boeing Flight Crew Training Manual for the 777: "Sufficient wind and gust protection is available with the auto-thrust engaged because the auto-thrust is designed to adjust thrust rapidly when the airspeed drops below command speed while reducing thrust slowly when the airspeed exceeds command speed. In turbulence, the result is that average thrust is higher than necessary to maintain command speed. This results in an average speed exceeding command speed."
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'........the water content in the tank could have been higher than realised. Would explain both engines flaming out'
Unless they just selected a new tank that happened to contain enough water and supplied both engines--not very likely. Water would be the first out.
This was an extremely close call. Glad there is no puzzle to assemble.
Unless they just selected a new tank that happened to contain enough water and supplied both engines--not very likely. Water would be the first out.
This was an extremely close call. Glad there is no puzzle to assemble.
In the fullness of time the causes will be revealed. If it was a birdstrike, it must have been some flock of birds.
In the meantime it sobering to think that a modern airliner operated by a first world airline could end up like this.
As a pilot - it reminds us that it can happen anytime, to anyone.
As a pax - reinforces the importance of listening to the safety announcements and reading the emergency card in your seatback pocket.
In the meantime it sobering to think that a modern airliner operated by a first world airline could end up like this.
As a pilot - it reminds us that it can happen anytime, to anyone.
As a pax - reinforces the importance of listening to the safety announcements and reading the emergency card in your seatback pocket.
On the photo's the APU inlet is open, so it apparently was running.
Is it common to have the APU running when landing the 777?
Is it common to have the APU running when landing the 777?
As stated in a previous post, if both engines lost power there would have been no AC electrical power to the transfer busses, and the APU would have attempted to start automatically. That could be the reason for the APU inlet door being open.
Normally, the APU is not running for landing, unless it is required by a QRH or MEL procedure.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Manchester
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To praise the pilots as heroes without all the facts is worse than the standard shouting of Pilot error. How much farther is the fall from grace then when the truth could later be found out to be in opposition? 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East England
Posts: 173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Downunderscouser
I remember the words on my 777 (engineers) course......the only source of standby power on the 777 is the RAT...... probably not a lot of use by the time it deployed and spun up in this case?
I remember the words on my 777 (engineers) course......the only source of standby power on the 777 is the RAT...... probably not a lot of use by the time it deployed and spun up in this case?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
I didn't say they ran out of fuel, but there are only two things that can practically fail both engines at the same time. One is fuel starvation caused by not having enough fuel or mismanaging what you have.... very difficult to do in a 777 and there appears to have been no mayday call or low fuel advisory to ATC.
The other thing is contaminated fuel. Considering the aircraft was out of Beijing, this would be the first thing I would be checking if I was in the management of any airline flying out of there.
If it wasn't one of those two things, then I am stumped.
The other thing is contaminated fuel. Considering the aircraft was out of Beijing, this would be the first thing I would be checking if I was in the management of any airline flying out of there.
If it wasn't one of those two things, then I am stumped.